Robo-Umps?
5,150 Views |
43 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Bobby Petrino`s Neckbrace
not a fan of the robo-ump. it takes the humanity out of that aspect
Beeching about ball and strike calls is half the fun.
Bunch of killjoys.
Bunch of killjoys.
Username checks out.Corporal Punishment said:
Beeching about ball and strike calls is half the fun.
Bunch of killjoys.
People who value the human element over getting the calls right just haven't seen their teams ****ed hard enough by an umpire or referee... yet.
Pretty sure most players, especially pitchers, who I've heard comment on the issue have spoken out against robo umps.
Personally, I am too. However, they've got to find a better way to hold umpires more accountable and inject some transparency when it comes to controversial calls.
My idea would be to calculate and publicize each umpires % correct stats. Treat them like any other stat and display them before the game on the TV when the umpires are shown. We'd be able to see them on TV, they'd be posted in the stadium, and TV commentators could comment on them during the game if need be. Establish expected performance measures to where if an umpire dips below the acceptable line he's demoted and a new ump is called up from the minors.
Doubt the ump union would ever agree to something like that but it's better than losing jobs to robots.
Personally, I am too. However, they've got to find a better way to hold umpires more accountable and inject some transparency when it comes to controversial calls.
My idea would be to calculate and publicize each umpires % correct stats. Treat them like any other stat and display them before the game on the TV when the umpires are shown. We'd be able to see them on TV, they'd be posted in the stadium, and TV commentators could comment on them during the game if need be. Establish expected performance measures to where if an umpire dips below the acceptable line he's demoted and a new ump is called up from the minors.
Doubt the ump union would ever agree to something like that but it's better than losing jobs to robots.
Robo umps. I 100% support this. Ball and strikes will always be subjective as long as some guy behind the plate is calling it.
Quote:
Pretty sure most players, especially pitchers, who I've heard comment on the issue have spoken out against robo umps.
That's because they make a living off of bad umpires who get fooled by framing.
Agreed. I personally am against the idea of a robo-ump as well, but umps have to be held more accountable for their calls. They have too much authority with not enough accountability. Any marginal pitch could be called however the ump is feeling. I've watched games where the ump consistently called low balls strikes for 9 frames.Ag_07 said:
Pretty sure most players, especially pitchers, who I've heard comment on the issue have spoken out against robo umps.
Personally, I am too. However, they've got to find a better way to hold umpires more accountable and inject some transparency when it comes to controversial calls.
My idea would be to calculate and publicize each umpires % correct stats. Treat them like any other stat and display them before the game on the TV when the umpires are shown. We'd be able to see them on TV, they'd be posted in the stadium, and TV commentators could comment on them during the game if need be. Establish expected performance measures to where if an umpire dips below the acceptable line he's demoted and a new ump is called up from the minors.
Doubt the ump union would ever agree to something like that but it's better than losing jobs to robots.
I'm for anything that puts that fat **** Joe West and the idiot Angel Hernandez out of a job.
The excuse of "keeping the human element" is a bunch of BS. The rules are black and white. Apply them correctly to all aspects of the game. As was said above, that's a line used by people who haven't had their team ****ed over bad enough yet. It's the reason I can't stand to watch basketball. If you look sideways at one of the superstars, it's a foul but a no-name guy from the bench can be completely raked across the arms going to the basket and there's no call.
There's a video that's been posted before where a minor league game was called with a robo ump. There was still a real ump behind the plate that made the ball/strike call. He was just prompted by the system to call a ball or strike. The notification was instantaneous and there was no lag compared to a normal umpire calling balls and strikes. You still need the umpires for the calls in the field (that are eligible for replay review), so there would still be a human element present. The difference is that the humans would be making the correct calls all of the time.
I suspect some players (besides pitchers & catchers) would be against it as well as the complete strike zone would be called as it's defined in the rule book.
The excuse of "keeping the human element" is a bunch of BS. The rules are black and white. Apply them correctly to all aspects of the game. As was said above, that's a line used by people who haven't had their team ****ed over bad enough yet. It's the reason I can't stand to watch basketball. If you look sideways at one of the superstars, it's a foul but a no-name guy from the bench can be completely raked across the arms going to the basket and there's no call.
There's a video that's been posted before where a minor league game was called with a robo ump. There was still a real ump behind the plate that made the ball/strike call. He was just prompted by the system to call a ball or strike. The notification was instantaneous and there was no lag compared to a normal umpire calling balls and strikes. You still need the umpires for the calls in the field (that are eligible for replay review), so there would still be a human element present. The difference is that the humans would be making the correct calls all of the time.
I suspect some players (besides pitchers & catchers) would be against it as well as the complete strike zone would be called as it's defined in the rule book.
Here's the video I was thinking of
YellAg2004 said:
The rules are black and white.
But they're not
Yeah the strike width is the width of the plate but the height of the strike zone is anything but black and white.
Hell it varies from player to player. Jose Altuve's strike zone is different than Aaron Judge's.
Where do the top of the player's knees start? What about the chest? Does a strike zone change if a player crouches more from one AB to another?
It's a bit more than black and white.
Quote:
it is expected that the rules tweaks will involve moving back the mound and using Trackman to call balls and strikes
Also interested in the "moving the mound back" part. That is in regards to the ball not being put in play nearly as much with all of the strikeouts in recent years. Every team now has a bullpen full of guys that throw 95+ it seems. To offset that somewhat, you either need to move the mound back or lower it. I actually thought lowering it a few inches might be the better solution. Thought the lowered mound would decrease velo a tad, but it would also take a little stress off the elbow/shoulder as well... maybe help out with the rash of TJ surgeries.
My point was that it is defined in the rule book. The actual definition isAg_07 said:YellAg2004 said:
The rules are black and white.
But they're not
Yeah the strike width is the width of the plate but the height of the strike zone is anything but black and white.
Hell it varies from player to player. Jose Altuve's strike zone is different than Aaron Judge's.
Where do the top of the player's knees start? What about the chest? Does a strike zone change if a player crouches more from one AB to another?
It's a bit more than black and white.
To implement the robo umps, there would obviously need to be several tweaks/changes to the rules. For example, if you follow the plan shown in the video I posted, you would need to adjust the rule to state that the zone will be pre-determined. You could base it on batting practice or you could take measurements of each player prior to the start of the season so you have their info loaded into the system.Quote:
The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.
If a player knows that their zone isn't going to change if they crouch more or less, they're going to adjust their approach accordingly. You could even put in a provision that if a batter wants to change their stance/approach during the season, they can request to be re-measured.
We have stats and metrics for almost every single aspect of the game. I won't buy that the reason we can't do robo umps is because we can't define the strike zone.
I definitely don't support pre-defining a player's strike zone. A player should have the freedom to adjust his stance in-game or whenever he likes...even in the middle of an at-bat.
Quote:
I won't buy that the reason we can't do robo umps is because we can't define the strike zone.
I don't think robo umps are best because the strike zone isn't meant to be defined.
With today's technology you certainly can but the question becomes do we want to define it.
My point was just that the strike zone is not black and white. There's lots of gray and the issue becomes do we want it black and white or do we want those gray areas.
Me personally I don't mind the gray areas and I think the game was meant to be played with those gray areas present.
Umps don't need to be perfect. They just need to be better
By that same logic, we should have never gotten instant replay because close calls in the grey area are part of the game. My preference is that the call be correct.
I agree that if umps could get better at balls/strikes, there really wouldn't be a need for robo umps. However, the guys in the majors are (supposedly) the best of the best, and here we are talking about how they need to be better. I just don't know how much more improvement is possible.
At some point you either have to accept that balls/strikes will be completely subject to the whims of that particular umpire on that particular day (which may change from inning to inning or batter to batter), or you have to start looking at alternatives with the goal being to get every call correct.
I agree that if umps could get better at balls/strikes, there really wouldn't be a need for robo umps. However, the guys in the majors are (supposedly) the best of the best, and here we are talking about how they need to be better. I just don't know how much more improvement is possible.
At some point you either have to accept that balls/strikes will be completely subject to the whims of that particular umpire on that particular day (which may change from inning to inning or batter to batter), or you have to start looking at alternatives with the goal being to get every call correct.
It's pretty easy for the system to adjust to batter size and stance. It will be interesting to see for sure. It's nice to see baseball finally open to change.
This doesn't bother me in the least, as long as consistently holds true.GarrettL_15 said:Agreed. I personally am against the idea of a robo-ump as well, but umps have to be held more accountable for their calls. They have too much authority with not enough accountability. Any marginal pitch could be called however the ump is feeling. I've watched games where the ump consistently called low balls strikes for 9 frames.Ag_07 said:
Pretty sure most players, especially pitchers, who I've heard comment on the issue have spoken out against robo umps.
Personally, I am too. However, they've got to find a better way to hold umpires more accountable and inject some transparency when it comes to controversial calls.
My idea would be to calculate and publicize each umpires % correct stats. Treat them like any other stat and display them before the game on the TV when the umpires are shown. We'd be able to see them on TV, they'd be posted in the stadium, and TV commentators could comment on them during the game if need be. Establish expected performance measures to where if an umpire dips below the acceptable line he's demoted and a new ump is called up from the minors.
Doubt the ump union would ever agree to something like that but it's better than losing jobs to robots.
It's the wildly inconsistent guys that grind your gears.
I'd be ok with this. It would speed up play, too.Quote:
we should have never gotten instant replay
Quote:
This doesn't bother me in the least, as long as consistently holds true.
It's the wildly inconsistent guys that grind your gears.
This.
I don't mind a bit of judgement and some variation, but it's the blatant and obvious incorrect calls that need to be eliminated.
There are accounts on twitter that post bad calls and assign a percentage of same call. It's the ones that have a 0-10% same call on them that are the outliers and are what need to be eliminated.
Each player would basically have to pose for a strike zone measurement before the season. It would be based on height, not stance. The top of the zone would follow some algorithm such as (3" below the armpit)*(player height in inches/84). The zones would be loaded before each game. For example, Judge's top zone would start ~2.9" below his arm pits, and Altuve's would be 2.3" below.Ag_07 said:YellAg2004 said:
The rules are black and white.
But they're not
Yeah the strike width is the width of the plate but the height of the strike zone is anything but black and white.
Hell it varies from player to player. Jose Altuve's strike zone is different than Aaron Judge's.
Where do the top of the player's knees start? What about the chest? Does a strike zone change if a player crouches more from one AB to another?
It's a bit more than black and white.
They could wear laser tag vests, too.
I am pro robo-ump for balls and strikes. It would work seamlessly and the fans wouldn't even notice other than more calls are called correctly. As mentioned in that Byrnes' above, umpires only get about 88% of balls and strikes correct. And on pitches that are within 2 inches of the corners, they get the call wrong 32% of the time.
Robo umps. Bring em on.
Robo umps. Bring em on.
It will drastically change pitching, imo.
Gramercy Riffs said:
People who value the human element over getting the calls right just haven't seen their teams ****ed hard enough by an umpire or referee... yet.
What are you going to do when the robo-umps do the same thing you're complaining about here? You want perfect officiating? Great. But I can assure you there isn't an agreed upon definition of perfect.
When you lose, you're going to *****.
In theory, using the maximum break on a pitch, and standing on the extreme opposite side of the rubber, I wonder how much out of the zone a pitch could move after barely clipping the edge of the black at the front of the plate, and then moving down and away from the plate. Especially when you have batters dug in on the back line of the batter's box, a strike that would never get called by a real ump might get called by a robo-ump, even though it's outside and in the dirt by the time it reaches the hitter. I don't know if that's physically possible, but some of those late moving pitches like McCuller's fastball, Claudio's change-up, or Kershaw's curveball would make an interesting sports science discussion.
valid pointThe Lost said:This doesn't bother me in the least, as long as consistently holds true.GarrettL_15 said:
I've watched games where the ump consistently called low balls strikes for 9 frames.
It's the wildly inconsistent guys that grind your gears.
Alright I get robo umps. I'm not a fan but I can see that this is where the game is going.
But c'mon...No mound visits unless it's a change? No shifts? Lengthening the distance to home plate?
Those are awful and not even worth experimenting
But c'mon...No mound visits unless it's a change? No shifts? Lengthening the distance to home plate?
Those are awful and not even worth experimenting
I'll be honest, I really want to see a manager argue with and kick dirt on a robot
Isn't that what made the robots take over in "The Matrix"?
I guess they figure why not try everything in the Independent league.
2 feet back? That seems like a long way.
2 feet back? That seems like a long way.
It is definitely physically possible and MLB pitchers do it. Currently when they are evaluating umpires, they override the system for this and mark the umpire correct when he calls those pitches in the dirt balls even though the machine will mark it as a strike.94chem said:
In theory, using the maximum break on a pitch, and standing on the extreme opposite side of the rubber, I wonder how much out of the zone a pitch could move after barely clipping the edge of the black at the front of the plate, and then moving down and away from the plate. Especially when you have batters dug in on the back line of the batter's box, a strike that would never get called by a real ump might get called by a robo-ump, even though it's outside and in the dirt by the time it reaches the hitter. I don't know if that's physically possible, but some of those late moving pitches like McCuller's fastball, Claudio's change-up, or Kershaw's curveball would make an interesting sports science discussion.
They would either have to change the rules to add "a ball that does not land in the dirt before touching the catchers glove" to the definition of a strike or it would be an adjustment for fans and players to get used to seeing those pitches called as strikes.
Featured Stories
See All
35:53
5h ago
2.9k
42:45
2h ago
1.5k
The Good Ol' Days: Reminiscing on Texas A&M's magical spring of '89
by David Sandhop
8:02
3h ago
1.1k
Depth of A&M lineup impresses even slugger Braden Montgomery
by Ryan Brauninger
12:52
5h ago
1.6k
Houston Memorial's Jackson Appel thriving in first season as an Aggie
by Ryan Brauninger
Dave Grohl
No panic Edgerrin and other Aggies, Madubuike was drafted #71
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
104
Chandlauch
JACKSON APPEL - Aggie Baseball - Would You be Surprised???
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
86
1/2 Man 1/2 Amazing
No panic Edgerrin and other Aggies, Madubuike was drafted #71
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
69
agsalaska
JACKSON APPEL - Aggie Baseball - Would You be Surprised???
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
67
Rudyjax
JACKSON APPEL - Aggie Baseball - Would You be Surprised???
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
47